Hillary, Barack or John?
Really, that’s the choice of candidates who have any chance at securing the Democratic nomination for president.
So who should it be?
All three are qualified and could handle the tasks and rigors of the position but the best of all would be an amalgamation of the three. However, science isn’t able to perform such a task — yet.
As for Clinton, she would certainly make a fine president despite her many detractors. She equivocates probably more than her two primary competitors but ultimately her head and heart are in the right place and always have been.
Curiously — and credit goes to one of my friends for bringing this up — she has greater and stronger convictions and principles than her husband. Whereas Bill Clinton would generally wheel-and-deal about most anything, sometimes just to be engaged in the political process as that is when he felt most alive, it has through the years been Hillary who has been the greater ideologist — the Clinton administration would not have attempted to tackle healthcare during term one without Hillary’s insistence and leadership.
She actually is much less of a compromiser at heart than Bill, despite her attempts at such in positioning herself more centrally for a presidential run. She is also much more vindictive than her husband but that’s another story.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell,” NAFTA, a strong feminist approach are ways in which she has shown her split from her husband. Hillary was the rabid one back in the 70s, not Bill, a fact not many recall. She was Bill’s emissary to the the progressives during his two terms and served well.
Now granted, she has done more than enough backpedaling and side-stepping in order to burnish and broaden her presidential appeal — for she of all the candidates escept maybe illusionist Mitt Romney have needed to do so — but the thinking here is that such is more window-dressing than anything else.
Many, if not most of the Hillary’s critics will undoubtedly disagree with this analysis but, without a makeover of perception, Hillary Clinton would be certain toast against the GOP candidate. That is truly what this is all about for she is taking it as a given that she will win the Democratic nomination. Her metamorphosis is not really such, more a minor-morphosis than anything else.
As for Obama, he is the perceived and self-projected candidate for change. However, it seems that the definition of change is in the mind of the beholder, a condition politicians lust after. Instead of attempting to appeal to every color and stripe AND being pegged as such, the elite politicos — and there are very few of them — garner support from what reasonably should be somewhat opposing groups. Obama, despute staking out a number of progressive positions, possesses the political talent that lets many voters paint their own preferred portrait of him.
In an election that will center around who is the most acceptable change agent — this despite the talk about national security being the foremost concern but Bush’s abusive and going on eight-year campaign of fronting a climate of fear has worn such so thin — Obama enjoys the advantage. Not only is he talking about politics NOT as usual, he is the freshest face and has the shortest resume. Being attractive and likeable adds brownie points to his lustre. How to carry out and implement such a campaign mantra though remains to be seen.
Having been run through the political wringer for seemingly an eternity, enough of the American public to win a presidential election is going to tilt towards the candidate who voters to varying degrees can most self-identify with and who can project that he or she is the change agent who can and will make things better. Perception rules in politics like so many other matters in life.
Barring major gaffes or the running of a John Kerry-like campaign, Obama is the best-positioned of the three frontrunners as a political presidential change agent.
Interestingly, Edwards is the contender doing the most talking and proposing regarding change. He is campaigning on fundamental societal changes which are exciting to hear about but may be too dramatic to win over a majority of the electorate — not necessarily a nomination but a general election. Clinton is always the name mentioned when the subject of polarization is the topic but Edwards stances on the issues are far more provocative than his two main opponents combined.
Edwards is flat out the most progressive in his campaign proposals. This is his deliberately chosen pathway, a mathod to try and separate himself from the others. It may or may not work in the primaries, where such an approach tends to be most successful but look for him to modulate his rhetoric if he wins the nomination.
What is unusual is that the others have not attempted to tag the inexperienced label, a la Obama, onto Edwards, despite his having served but one term in the Senate. His run as Kerry’s vice-presidential mate appears to have garnered him greater perceived gravitas, despite the loss to Bush and Cheney.
What stands out the most as a personal ‘kick me’ sign on the backside of each of these individuals is the animosity towards Clinton, the inexperience of Obama and probably the ‘he’s a rich lawyer slumming for the poor” for Edwards, respectively. How each deals with such tagging attempts will be telling.
Also, Wes Clark remains the best and most attractive choice as vice president for Clinton, Obama and Edwards. His military background would enhance a Clinton candidacy where the Commander In Chief issue is a concern, would give the least-experienced Obama candidacy a substantial national security grounding and also do the same for Edwards. Clark’s superb televison appearances should make him the top A-lister when the time comes for choosing a running mate.
